What the current President is doing in denigrating our own
country in the faces of world leaders is despicable. After being chastized by communist dictators about how they've been treated
in the past by the United States, his response to these tyrants and massive violators of civil liberties was absolutely chilling:
"We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms," Obama said to loud applause. "But
I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations."

He also added, mockingly, for comic relief: “I
am very grateful that President Ortega didn’t blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

The Reason the Left Must Destroy the
USA

BySher Zieve

In order for global (AKA “one world”) government (AKA “rule”) to come
into being, the United States of America must be destroyed. The USA and its Constitution are far too dangerous to the
totalitarian Left for it to allow the country to continue its existence. For many years now, I have included in my Bio
“if Leftists ran the country (and left to their own inane devices), it would be the end of the United States as a sovereign
nation.” Unfortunately and tragically, I was—and still am—correct.

The United States Constitution is a document that was designed and implemented to severely restrict
government interference and control over individual states and We-the-People. The current US Federal Administration—under
the rule of Barack Obama—is now operating under its leaders’ stated agenda of redistributing wealth (which is
taken from the middle class and “redistributed” to the US and Global political power elite) and establishing new
laws to take the US Constitution from limiting control over the US population to total control over We-the-People. Thus
far, with very few exceptions, not one of the ‘loyal opposition’ has truly tried to stop Obama. Instead,
they seem to dutifully accept his programs that are tearing America apart—in favor of the global secular New World Order
(NWO). This NWO will consist of—but not be limited to—the following for the USA:

Massive energy tax increases of at least an additional $1,800/year/family

Higher prices for all goods and services

Total government control of the media (See Rosa Brooks “news” bail out proposal)

Total government control of the entire financial industry (money will go to Obama and leftist supporters and
be withheld from those who oppose them)

The end of free speech (US state police have already been apprised by the Obama administration’s DHS
Chief Napolitano that all who hold conservative or third party viewpoints are to be considered ‘enemies of the state’)

Abortions on demand

Infanticide for failed abortions (Note: Obama voted four times in opposition to a law that would have
protected babies who are left to die after a failed abortion)

Total government control of ALL industries Obama et al deem “essential” (which is subject to change
at a moment’s notice)

The end to small business unless it supports the Left

The end of the middle class—as Obama and Co and the globalists will have gutted the country’s
treasury and placed US taxpayer money in their own pockets

The criminalization of all political thought that is deemed non-supportive of the Left

The rescinding of Amendment 22 to end presidential term limits

The prosecution of President George W. Bush for protecting the country against terrorists (in order to distract
the masses from what Supreme Leader Obama and Co are really doing)

The elevation of terrorists to a protected class (Islamists soon to be the global power elite’s Secret
Police force?)

Forced taxpayer funding for illegal immigrants

The dismantling of the US’ southern border

Major drug dealers covertly partnering with government

These are just a few of the stark horrors that are forthcoming—or have already arrived
at our doorstep. Without a real revolution can they be stopped? You will need to answer that question for yourself.

Biden's 14 Lies

JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES DURING THE DEBATE

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans
earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally
with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against
funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States
had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is
against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s
record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they
get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state
tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles
of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen.
David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied
in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie
and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe
Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven
right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the
Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but
in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an
emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners
in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then
they did under Reagan.

On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said
Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition
“goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”

Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with
Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of
Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.

“I would,” he replied.

Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama
for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment
to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?”
he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."

Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed
McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000
a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not
voting.”

The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and
Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated
when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”

The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization of McCain’s healthcare
plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700 billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.

What
is a "Loophole"?

by
Robert D. Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- How would Barack Obama pay for the $800 billion that John McCain claimed
in the first presidential debate Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., that his Democratic opponent would spend if he were elected president?
Obama replied, by "closing tax loopholes."

Obama was no more specific in the debate, and tax experts doubt that structural changes without
increasing taxes can raise anything close to that amount of money.

My office asked the Obama campaign for the details, and it responded with a 19-page single-spaced
paper on the candidate's "tax plans."

In fact, there was precious little about tax policy in the paper, which amounted to a repeat
of Democratic campaign oratory that can be heard in 30-second speeches before both houses of Congress daily on C-SPAN.

Obama has made clear that he would try to roll back President Bush's tax cuts, but that does
not come under the definition of a "loophole." A loophole consists of a conniving tax attorney discovering a weakness in the
Internal Revenue Code or such a weakness intentionally legislated by Congress under the instigation of crafty lobbyists. The
only specific tax legislation contained in Obama's paper would raise the capital gains rate for most shareholders, restore
taxation on dividend income to pre-Bush standards and restore the full estate tax.

These were not loopholes but presidential proposals enacted by Congress. The Obama paper paints
a picture of lobbyists running wild on Capitol Hill but neglects to assess the impact on the economy during the current financial
crisis of taking a serious strike against the stockholding public.

Obama's dividends and capital gains proposals appear to be a major attempt at redistribution
of income rather than a serious attempt to pay for the spending that he has proposed.

IAEA lacks tools to expose secret work: ElBaradei

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Tuesday its failure to detect
nuclear arms work in Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s showed his inspectors lacked authority to pre-empt proliferators.

His remark was telling because an investigation of Iran by the agency has stalled over Tehran's failure to explain
allegations of secret nuclear arms research and its refusal to grant inspectors access to military-affiliated sites and officials
they deem relevant.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the crux of the problem was
that some countries under investigation, the latest being Syria, had failed to ratify an agency protocol permitting short-notice
IAEA visits to sites not declared to be nuclear to ensure no bomb-related work was going on at secret locations.

"Our legal authority is very limited. With Iraq, we have discovered that unless we have the Additional Protocol
in place, we will not really be able to discover undeclared activities," he said on the sidelines of the agency's annual 145-nation
General Conference in Vienna.

"Our experience is that any proliferator will not really go for declared diverted activities (that would quickly
reveal them as violators of the Non-Proliferation Treaty), they will go for completely clandestine undeclared activities,"
he said.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Iraq under Saddam Hussein developed a nuclear weapons program hidden from the IAEA because
of severe restrictions on access for inspectors. It came to light only after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War and the IAEA
spent the next seven years dismantling it.

DECLARATIONS NOT ENOUGH

Diplomats say the key to resolving current IAEA inquiries into Iran and Syria is extra access to sites not declared
to be nuclear. Tehran and Damascus have both ruled this out, arguing that such sites involve their conventional military and
so lie outside the IAEA's writ.

Iran and Syria deny having any covert weapons programs or illicitly hiding any nuclear activity from the IAEA.
ElBaradei has called on Syria for greater transparency and access. Damascus has not ratified the Additional Protocol.

ElBaradei said the failure of about 100 countries, including the United States, to ratify the decade-old protocol
handicapped the IAEA's verification mandate.

Since May, the IAEA has been investigating Syria, based on U.S. intelligence allegations that it had almost
completed a secret nuclear reactor that might have made bomb-grade plutonium before the site was destroyed in an Israeli air
strike.

The United States and Western allies have criticized Iran and Syria in the IAEA debate, accusing both of stonewalling
U.N. investigators and demanding unfettered cooperation.

ElBaradei said his job was complicated by loopholes in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which permits states
to develop nuclear fuel enrichment technology even though this can yield material for civilian energy purposes as well as
to make atom bombs, depending on how the process is configured.

He said the seven known nuclear weapons powers were setting a bad example to non-nuclear-armed states by clinging
to doomsday arsenals as the pillar of their security instead of dismantling them according to NPT commitments.

"How can I go with a straight face to the non-nuclear weapons states and tell them these weapons are no good
for you, when the nuclear weapons states continue to modernize and say we absolutely need nuclear weapons?" said ElBaradei.

"So we are seeing a new phenomenon of proliferation of sensitive fuel-cycle activity. Whether you do it for
economic or science reasons ... or as an insurance policy (against attack), you come very close to becoming a nuclear weapons
state."

The media does, and they have with Liberals devised the perfect way to do it. It is the "pay-as-you-go"
Congressional budgeting rule -- Pay-Go. It requires every move that Congress makes be "budget neutral"; every new spending
initiative must be paid for - no more deficit spending.

How could anyone, Conservatives especially, not be enraptured with such a concept?

It certainly intrigued everyone in Congress in 1990, for it was then that Pay-Go became law as a
part of that year's Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. (It went away in 2002, only to be reinstated in January of this
year.)

The problems with Pay-Go, however, became apparent immediately. It did nothing to reduce
spending, and everything to prevent tax cuts. This went unreported by the press because it did not fit into their government
growth is good narrative.

Only in this press-induced
haze can the federal government spend 1/5th of everything the nation creates and there be anyone calling
it miserly.

They instead used it as an opportunity to redefine what "fiscal responsibility" means in Washington.

Before Pay-Go, "fiscal responsibility" meant limiting federal expenditure to what the government
could reasonably afford. And in these good old days there were "spending hawks" in Congress, elected officials who actually
kept a keen eye focused on ensuring that government never grew too big for its fiscal britches. One, the late Harry
Byrd, Sr. of Virginia, was often seen on the Senate floor in objection to some expenditure, asking, "How shall we pay for
this?"

Under Pay-Go, spending hawks slowly went the way of the dodo, to be replaced by "deficit hawks",
a breed of bird the media prefers. These creatures are first and foremost concerned with the Congressional bottom line,
and are far more willing to raise taxes than reduce spending to maintain it.

The press in unison praised these new "hawks", and lauded their spendthrift ways as the new definition
of "fiscal responsibility."

Responsibility used to mean frugality; it now means tax hikes to pay for as much government as possible.
Accordingly, you can be an Ear-Marxist and still be a "deficit hawk", so long as you raise taxes enough to foot the bills.

And despite replete examples throughout our history that reducing taxes actually increases the revenue
Washington collects, under Pay-Go Congress can not decrease taxes a dollar here without raising taxes a dollar there or cutting
spending a dollar somewhere -- "budget neutrality", remember?

Once caught in this media-laid trap, is it any wonder that from a $14 trillion economy, fueled by
over 300 million Americans, 536 elected officials in the District of Columbia are able to take and spend $2.7 trillion (over
19%)? And those with any thought of reining this in are upbraided for it by the press?

For this is merely the tip of the Washington ice berg the media wishes to see. Only in this
press-induced haze can the federal government spend 1/5th of everything the nation creates and there be
anyone calling it miserly.

Yet the media are doing exactly that. They are never ones to see any government program go
without ever more, each and every year. Only they can call a program's increase of a lesser percentage than that it
had grown the previous year a "cut."

And so Pay-Go goes. Were it rightly defined by the press, the mess in Washington would by
now be a great deal less.

Old records can still bite!!!! The words of these Democrats speak for themselves!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom
line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18,1998

"[W]e
urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes
on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to
President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam
Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons
inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary
of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace
and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December
5, 2001

"We
begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and
is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The
last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has
since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd
(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons
of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years
... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller
(D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock,
his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase
his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D, NY), Oct 10,
2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage
of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because
he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO
NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER

WERE
ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY!